Objective Truth
Efilism is an objective, absolute, secular, determinist, materialist and mechanist philosophy - in other words, a philosophy that directly opposes subjectivist, random, dualist, idealist, relativist and metaphysical philosophy. Efilism does not rely on human-centricity, subject-centricity, subject-relation, subjective analysanda, or syllogistic propositional logic to derive or posit conclusions -- it drills underneath this with meta-cognition, explicandum and explicans, closed-concept empiricism, and modal logic ''to maintain conclusions that are objectively and necessarily true (regardless of any ''possible alternative, and regardless of the "subject"). IE. Determinism Vs. Freedom - It is not necessary to acquire any more proof that free will doesn't exist - because true freedom cannot exist. # Suggesting there's free will in a cause-and-effect universe, is like saying there's "triangular roundness". (Free will/Determinism are mutually contradictory and incompatible) # Suggesting the universe isn't cause-and-effect requires that a non-cause could "cause something". (How could something happen if it wasn't caused to happen?) # Suggesting the universe isn't deterministic, but random, would mean "randomness" determines the outcome of the universe. ("Randomness" is a completely broken piece of rhetoric, because even granting its case, still means "randomness" is determining outcome, and since that still means outcome is being determined, then it's still deterministic) An objective thinker must understand what "broken semantics", "logical incoherence" and "impossibility" is. Then the picture of reality comes together, regardless of any and all static. Metacognition Meta-cognition is a double-down function of awareness that our brains have. Most people understand they have awareness and self-awareness. Only a true philosopher understands they also have awareness of awareness, thoughts about thoughts, and other ways of ejecting, divorcing, and separating inputs and outputs from one's own inputs and outputs by using other inputs and outputs. This mechanism opens an entire dimension of objective information to be at our grasp. Explicandum and Explicans An Explicandum is that which necessitates explanation, the Explicans is that which necessarily explicates. Example #1 The tree falling in the forest making noise when nobody is around # Noise = the Explicandum # Vibration of molecules = the Explicans # Hearing the noise = the closed-concept empirical consequence, of a conscious medium imputing that vibration algorithm into a sensory algorithm output Example #2 Inmendham and David Benatar VS. The DNA Delusion # Benatar's Asymmetry - the asymmetry between life's goods & life's bads = the Explicandum # Inmendham's Efilism - the fact every "good" is always just the consequence of fixing a bad = the Explicans # Fixing a bad = the closed-concept empirical consequence, of a subordinate anti-entropic unit having to maintain its function and order, inside of a chaotic disintegrating entropic universe Modal Logic Modal Logic is the division of reality into 2 prime nodes: That which is the case, and that which is not the case. Those are the only'' 2'' types of node that make this reality, or that could make any possible reality. If you run thought experiments or integrity tests to confirm or deny that, you will find there's no form of reality or reality-modeling that can escape the requirement of matching those 2 nodes. This is because it is necessarily true. Most people understand there are truths and there are falsehoods -- however -- there are also necessary truths and necessary falsehoods, which apply to all possible equations of any reality (or reality model) that could even exist or be theorized to exist''.'' Example: Objective reality and objective truth necessarily exist, because if objective reality and objective truth did not exist, then it would be necessarily true that objective truth and objective reality does not exist. That consequently means, it would be the case that objective truth and objective reality do not exist. And since that would be the case, this would both create and require a final objective necessary truth: The truth that it is indeed the case, that objective reality and objective truth do not exist. (In other words, necessary truth itself is necessary -- it's impossible to discount it -- it overrides the universe, objective reality, and all other possible objective truths.) Thus, in modal arguments, we reason about what is necessary, possible, or impossible. Or what is always the case, what can temporarily be the case, or what could never be the case. Necessary Truth Now why does necessary truth exist? Because it is impossible for it to not exist. Why? The absence of necessary truth would just re-create the necessary truth that necessary truth was absent. It would also be necessarily true that nothing was the case. Including the case that nothing was the case, and the case that necessary truth does not exist. We are caught inside a "if this, then that" data mirror that always ends up reflecting something being the case in the ''end. Therefore, objective reality and objective truth must, as an absolute minimum necessity, maintain the necessary truth that something is true, if only as the fact of "absolute absence", an absolute void, or ''terminal stasis (nothing ever happening ever again). Recursion Recursion is the shadow of necessary truth -- technically it's a representadum of it (a virtualized version of the concept) and has actual real-world uses (it makes computers function). Like how the number "2" doesn't technically empirically exist. But 2 does empirically exist as a representandum, it's a virtualized representation of the empirical truth, that a unitary configuration in reality can be split in half. And since that can happen, we represent what happened as "2". Recursion occurs when a thing is defined in terms of itself, or of its type. It is where a function being defined is applied within its own definition. It is the process a procedure goes through, when one of the steps of the procedure involves invoking the procedure itself. Objective Reality / Nomological Necessity Objective reality could be conceptualized as the "perennial binary" that moderates, determines, and intermediates what is the case, and what is not the case. That is: everything that could ever, could not ever, will ever, and has ever been the case. It must maintain even the truth of nothing else being the case, ''or nothing else being the case ever again. Because as mentioned, if it were possible for even objective reality to not exist, one last objective truth determines it is the case it does not exist. So what is this last remaining piece determining this? It is the ''necessity that necessitates -- nomological necessity --'' which overrides literally everything, even the purest sense of existence and non-existence. There is another way to logically test this: Even if it were possible to take the necessity that necessitates out of existence, then it will necessarily be the case that necessity was taken out of existence. So it will always necessarily be the case: # That necessity used to exist, and was taken out of existence # That necessity still exists, and has not been taken out of existence # That necessity never existed # That necessity always existed # That necessity could never exist # That necessity must always exist # That necessity could "randomly" take the form of any of these options or any other option, and never obey a rule, truth, fact, or axiom But this just creates another necessary truth which allows, permits, actualizes, maintains, or determines that to' be the case 'or 'not be the case'. What this thought-experiment is getting at is it seems ''impossible for necessity to not exist. A perfectly fair reason for its existence, and a profound fact to try digesting, but the puzzle is not complete. The entire history of our species having looked at reality as the dichotomy between "something vs. nothing... reality's existence vs. its non-existence"... seems logically primitive. Maybe there was never a point to bother comparing reality to a non-reality. Regardless, those comparisons cannot ultimately solve this puzzle. There must be different frameworks used to split this apart, before ultimately dichotomizing and anatomizing reality. Rather than something vs nothing, or existence vs non-existence, what is the latest dichotomy to drill this puzzle apart? Contingency vs. necessity. Contingency Vs. Necessity All possible phenomena or events that could ever exist, are either a contingency that can change, or a necessity that cannot. Do try testing if that's true or not, it will be apparent there is no outside or in between for "changeable vs unchangeable". Even to suggest an absolute necessity exists, but can change later, only proves it was never absolute and it was contingent. But could a contingency later become absolutely necessary, then never change again? Already we can notice a functionalist asymmetry while drilling through this. Another prime reason objective reality and this puzzle works is because "What is done can never be undone." (Time can only go forward, never backward.) The Final Answer / Theory of Everything This (objective necessary reality) is undoubtedly the most remarkable phenomenon. It has been graffitied with dogmatic magical divine fairytales and adorned with the "god mask" for as long as our species has been able to logically sense any of this is the case. It is the first and last piece of the reality equation, the 1 key indispensable ingredient. We have yet to answer the necessity problem. Sufficiently reverse-engineering the algorithm or pattern that makes nomological necessity the case - to figure out what is maintaining nomological necessity as the case - will be the end of all questions. Probably a task suited for general artificial intelligence. That is not to say that we can't soon figure out what's going on with this thing and what this system kernel truly is. Contrary to the popular appeals to agnosticism, ignorance and subjectivism, we have turned over almost every rock of understanding in the universe. Put it this way: science hasn't found a new correct answer since Darwinian evolution, despite having exponentially more powerful technology. We have uncovered reality so thoroughly that we are at a stalemate of sorts -- physics has acclimated itself to just re-configuring the story, often making up god-of-the-gaps phenomena like dark-matter, anti-matter, virtual-photons, aether, anti-gravity, and quantum-mechanical pseudoscience like "superposition", "the future determines the present" and "this is not a cause and effect paradigm" -- because the only thing left is to blend together / reverse engineer the pieces of understanding and see if anything sticks. All the prime pieces of the board of the universe have basically been accounted for. So we have little else to do with our time, if not just crafting those mostly fallacious analysandum theories and praying for the best, the rest of the work is mostly applying all the pieces as STEM. "Humans don't want truth, they want a swirly mystery that carries on forever." - Inmendham / Draftscience (2019)